Automated analyzers are well-known in the field of clinical chemistry and in the field of immunochemistry. Representative examples of such automated analyzers include, but are not limited to, PRISM® analyzers, AxSym® analyzers, ARCHITECT® analyzers, all of which are commercially available from Abbott Laboratories, Cobas® 6000, commercially available from Roche Diagnostics, Advia, commercially available from Siemens A G, Dimension Vista, commercially available from Dade Behring Inc., Unicel® DxC600i, commercially available from Beckman Coulter Inc., and VITROS, commercially available from Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics. Each of these analyzers suffers from various shortcomings, some more than others. Some of the shortcomings encountered by more than one of these automated analyzers include the use of large volumes of sample, the use of large volumes of reagents, the generation of large volumes of liquid waste and solid waste, and high costs. Some of the aforementioned automated analyzers are not designed so as to be able to carry out both clinical chemistry assays and immunoassays. Some of the aforementioned automated analyzers are not capable of being modified to suit the demands of certain users. For example, even if a user desires to have more immunoassay reagents on an analyzer and fewer clinical chemistry reagents on the analyzer, or vice versa, the user cannot modify the configuration. Furthermore, the addition of additional immunoassay modules and/or clinical chemistry modules to increase throughput is difficult, if not impossible. Some of the aforementioned automated analyzers require a great deal of maintenance, both scheduled and unscheduled. In addition, some of the aforementioned automated analyzers have scheduling protocols for assays that cannot be varied, i.e., the assay scheduling protocols are fixed, which limits such features as throughput. For example, modification of current assay protocols or addition of new assay protocols may be difficult, if not impossible. The ARCHITECT® analyzers currently in use can only support six variants of chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay protocols. In addition, some of the aforementioned analyzers occupy a great deal of floor space and consume large quantities of energy.
Users of automated analyzers desire the automated analyzers to have a minimal effect on laboratory operations, i.e., occupancy of small areas of floor space, reduction of quantities of liquid waste and solid waste, reduction of quantities of reagents and samples used, capability of interacting with existing laboratory information management systems, and simplification of ordering of consumable items. Users of automated analyzers further desire more automation of processes, e.g., greater integration of immunoassays with clinical chemistry assays, automated loading of reagents, automated loading of other consumable items, automated removal of waste, and automated maintenance. Users of automated analyzers still further desire safer and more reliable apparatus, e.g., minimal quantity of unexpected failures, minimal down-time, minimal time required to diagnose and repair unexpected failures. Users of automated analyzers still further desire more trustworthy apparatus, e.g., consistent results across a plurality of interconnected analyzers, internal checks for verifying all assay processing steps, and self-diagnosing apparatus. Users of automated apparatus further desire quiet apparatus and environmentally friendly apparatus.
The management of bulk liquids used by automated clinical analyzers is typically performed manually. Consumers generally replenish bulk liquids on automated clinical analyzers based on need, i.e., a low inventory. The replenishment operation could reach a frequency that demands frequent, time-consuming monitoring by laboratory personnel. Accordingly, it is desired to automate the aforementioned operations in order to reduce the labor required to manage the inventory of bulk liquids in clinical analyzers.